Share this page with your friends:

Please note: The Frank Talk articles listed below contain historical material. The data provided was current at the time of publication. For current information regarding any of the funds mentioned in these presentations, please visit the appropriate fund performance page.

The 5 Costliest Financial Regulations of the Past 20 Years: A Timeline

May 18, 2017

Last year, the Federal Register—the U.S. government’s depository of rules and regulations—hit an all-time high of 81,640 pages. Among the industries that bear the greatest regulatory oversight is financials, which has seen a disproportionate amount of scrutiny in recent years, especially following the 9/11 attacks and subprime mortgage crisis.

Although I agree with the need to have and play by the rules, financial regulations have become so onerous that they render all but the largest firms noncompetitive. It’s a game whose rules are continually shifting, and there often seems to be more referees than players. A recent Thomson Reuters survey found that more than a third of all financial firms spend at least a whole work day every week tracking and analyzing regulatory changes. This is an obligation most companies simply can’t afford in the long term.

It serves no one, least of all investors and borrowers, to have fewer options in the capital markets. But this is precisely what the most recent regulations have contributed to. In the last 20 years, the number of listed companies has been cut in half, and since 2008, one in four regional banks has disappeared.

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress are actively working to alleviate any additional regulatory pressure. In January, the House passed a bill requiring securities officials to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of any new rule—something that should have been done in the first place—and in February the president signed an executive order requiring the elimination of two federal regulations for every new one that’s adopted.

As for when those that are already in place can be lifted, in whole or in part, is a different matter.

Having said that, I want to share with you a timeline of the five costliest financial regulations of the past 20 years. Please note that when I say “costly,” I’m referring not only to dollar figures but also additional workload and compliance hours.

October 2001: International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001

Passed in October 2001 as part of the USA PATRIOT Act, this particular act aims to prevent black money from being used to finance terrorist activities. It actually reforms two previous anti-money laundering (AML) laws, the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 and the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986.

Although I think most of us would agree that catching terrorists is an admirable mission, the AML rules come at a very high cost to financial institutions. According to a 2016 study conducted by the Heritage Foundation, the current rules cost the U.S. economy between $4.8 billion and $8 billion annually. And with so few money laundering cases opened and investigated every year, each conviction since the law went into effect carries an estimated $7 million price tag.

Consequently, many banks, facing strict penalties and compliance costs, have cancelled thousands of “high-risk” accounts, including those belonging to money-transfer firms and humanitarian organizations.

July 2002: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX)

Enacted in July 2002, Sarbanes-Oxley, or SOX, was intended to prevent large-scale corporate and accounting fraud that led to the demise of Enron, WorldCom and others. It set in place new requirements for public companies.

The most burdensome of these is Section 404, which requires external auditors to report on the adequacy of a firm’s “internal controls.” Since such auditing is so complex and costly—sometimes quadruple the normal amount—many smaller companies have found it prohibitively difficult to raise capital in the public markets. Before SOX, there were an average 528 initial public offerings (IPOs) a year, according to Dealogic data. Since it was enacted, that number has fallen to 135, a decline of nearly 75 percent.

This has resulted in the rise of private capital and has locked retail investors out of high-growth investment opportunities.

Speaking to the Detroit Economic Club in 2013, Home Depot founder and former CEO Bernie Marcus said that, had SOX existed when he helped conceive the company in the late 1970s, he wouldn’t have been able to get it off the ground, let alone take it public. This would have been a shame, as Home Depot is now one of the largest employers in the U.S. and has among the highest market caps, standing at nearly $188 billion. A $5,000 investment in the company when it first IPOed in September 1981 would today be worth well over $27 million. In its current form, SOX threatens to put an end to such high-growth opportunities.

March 2010: Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)

Signed by then-President Barack Obama, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) allegedly aims to clamp down on tax evasion by requiring participating foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with names, addresses and account details of all American accountholders living abroad with assets over $50,000.

As I wrote back in 2014, the law’s mandates would be felt hardest “not by wealthy ‘fat cat’ tax dodgers but hardworking Americans who have no intentions of cheating the U.S. tax system.”

I’m not alone here. The IRS, of all groups, has come out on the side of taxpayers, writing in 2015 that “the IRS’s approach to FATCA implementation has created significant compliance burdens and risk exposures to a variety of impacted parties.” The rule’s underlying assumption, it says, is that “all such taxpayers should be suspected of fraudulent activity, unless proven otherwise.”

Until the law is reformed, the IRS adds, its efforts “will continue to be unsystematic, unjustified and unsuccessful.”

Many others apparently agree—especially those FATCA targets. The number of overseas individuals renouncing their U.S. citizenship crossed above 5,000 in 2016, an all-time high, with 2,300 expatriating in the final quarter alone.

July 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The most sweeping reform of the U.S. financial services industry since the Great Depression, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law July 2010, creating some 400 new rules and mandates as well as several new councils, bureaus and agencies. Standing at more than 22,000 pages, Dodd-Frank is such a behemoth piece of legislation that it’s impossible to discuss it comprehensively in such a short space.

Suffice it to say, though, that since it went into effect, a startling number of community banks have gone under, giving borrowers fewer options. Lower-income customers are disproportionately at a loss, as many banks have done away with free checking.

Both former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and billionaire investor Warren Buffett have suggested Dodd-Frank needs to go, with Greenspan saying he’d love to see the 2010 law “disappear.” Buffett, meanwhile, commented that the U.S. is “less well equipped to handle a financial crisis today than we were in 2008. Dodd-Frank has taken away the Federal Reserve’s ability to act in a crisis.”

Reforming Dodd-Frank is supposedly near the top of President Trump’s priorities, and a 600-page replacement called the Financial Choice Act 2.0 has already been drafted. If passed, the legislation would relax some of Dodd-Frank’s more restrictive rules and limit the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It would also roll back the so-called Volcker Rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, which effectively bans banks from making speculative investments that don’t directly benefit their customers.

April 2016: Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule

On its surface, the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule sounds like something everyone can get behind. It mandates that all who serve as fiduciaries—broker-dealers, investment advisors, insurance agents and the like—must act in the best interest of their clients. Fine. But how the rule will be interpreted and applied could have negative consequences in the securities markets.

What’s naturally going to happen is financial professionals, in an effort to remain compliant with the rule, will recommend only the least expensive products, regardless of whether they’re a good fit for their clients. Many mutual funds—which might be better performing but have higher expenses than other investment vehicles—will fall off brokerage firms’ platforms.

It would be like the DOL telling consumers they can only shop at Walmart and buy their coffee from Dunkin’ Donuts because anything more expensive—Target or Starbucks, say—is “riskier,” even though it’s of higher quality.

Issued in April 2016, the rule was delayed for 60 days by the Trump administration and is now scheduled to go into effect early next month. It’s already had disruptive consequences. Investment Company Institute (ICI) President and CEO Paul Schott Stevens, speaking this month to ICI members, stated the rule was “causing great harm,” adding that brokers are “simply resigning from small accounts en masse” to avoid legal and regulatory risk.

It might be difficult for Trump and Congress to provide relief from these and other financial regulations—especially now that the multiple investigations into the Trump campaign threaten to sideline such efforts—but I still have faith.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor. By clicking the link(s) above, you will be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

Holdings may change daily. Holdings are reported as of the most recent quarter-end. None of the securities mentioned in the article were held by any accounts managed by U.S. Global Investors as of 3/31/2017.

Please consider carefully a fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. For this and other important information, obtain a fund prospectus by clicking here or by calling 1-800-US-FUNDS (1-800-873-8637). Read it carefully before investing. Foreside Fund Services, LLC, Distributor. U.S. Global Investors is the investment adviser.

Read additional important information.

Bond funds are subject to interest-rate risk; their value declines as interest rates rise. Tax-exempt income is federal income tax free. A portion of this income may be subject to state and local income taxes, and if applicable, may subject certain investors to the Alternative Minimum Tax as well. The Near-Term Tax Free Fund may invest up to 20% of its assets in securities that pay taxable interest. Income or fund distributions attributable to capital gains are usually subject to both state and federal income taxes. The tax free funds may be exposed to risks related to a concentration of investments in a particular state or geographic area. These investments present risks resulting from changes in economic conditions of the region or issuer.

Gold, precious metals, and precious minerals funds may be susceptible to adverse economic, political or regulatory developments due to concentrating in a single theme. The prices of gold, precious metals, and precious minerals are subject to substantial price fluctuations over short periods of time and may be affected by unpredicted international monetary and political policies. We suggest investing no more than 5% to 10% of your portfolio in these sectors.

Foreign and emerging market investing involves special risks such as currency fluctuation and less public disclosure, as well as economic and political risk. By investing in a specific geographic region, a regional fund’s returns and share price may be more volatile than those of a less concentrated portfolio.

The Emerging Europe Fund invests more than 25% of its investments in companies principally engaged in the oil & gas or banking industries. The risk of concentrating investments in this group of industries will make the fund more susceptible to risk in these industries than funds which do not concentrate their investments in an industry and may make the fund’s performance more volatile.

Because the Global Resources Fund concentrates its investments in a specific industry, the fund may be subject to greater risks and fluctuations than a portfolio representing a broader range of industries.

Stock markets can be volatile and share prices can fluctuate in response to sector-related and other risks as described in the fund prospectus.

Morningstar Ratings are based on risk-adjusted return. The Overall Morningstar Rating for a fund is derived from a weighted-average of the performance figures associated with its three-, five- and ten-year (if applicable) Morningstar Rating metrics. Past performance does not guarantee future results. For each fund with at least a three-year history, Morningstar calculates a Morningstar Rating? based on a Morningstar Risk-Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a fund’s monthly performance (including the effects of sales charges, loads, and redemption fees), placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of funds in each category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. (Each share class is counted as a fraction of one fund within this scale and rated separately, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.)

Each of the mutual funds or services referred to in the U.S. Global Investors, Inc. website may be offered only to persons in the United States. This website should not be considered a solicitation or offering of any investment product or service to investors residing outside the United States.

Certain materials on the site may contain dated information. The information provided was current at the time of publication. For current information regarding any of the funds mentioned in such materials, please visit the fund performance page.

Some link(s) above may be directed to a third-party website(s). U.S. Global Investors does not endorse all information supplied by this/these website(s) and is not responsible for its/their content.

All opinions expressed and data provided are subject to change without notice. Some of these opinions may not be appropriate to every investor.